[Vision2020] answering g. crabtree

[g. crabtree]

What a surprise, Joe, you missed my point completely. I thought I made it 
fairly plain that as long as you confine the argument to bickering back and 
forth I couldn't care less. Go ahead and criticize till the cows come home. 
What ticks me off is when people on your side of the argument decide that 
criticism just isn't good enough and decide to physically interfere with the 
operation of the church. Be it tax exemption, home boarding, zoning 
complaints, attempting to deny permits or the latest supposed outrage, you 
hunt for any possible thing to harass this group and when the plan fails, as 
most of them do, you scuttle and scurry about to find some new bit of 
twisted innuendo with which to renew your assault. This is what I find 
annoying. And what do I do about it? Criticize! Nothing more and nothing 
less. Nobodies attacking your free speech and, more importantly, nobodies 
skulking about in your back yard or rummaging in your garbage cans, trying 
to ferret out any little thing with which to interfere in your life. 
Nobodies attempting to interfere with your livelihood and nobodies 
vandalizing your property. Seems to me your getting the better end of the 
deal, Joe.

G. Crabtree
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] answering g. crabtree


Now I get it, Gary. Thanks for clarifying things!

It is bad for me to be a fly in the CC ointment and criticize things that 
they say but fine for you to be a fly in my ointment and criticize things 
that I say.

When Doug Wilson says that slavery is a good thing that is free speech; when 
I respond to this absurd suggestion I am being "intolerant and 
hypocritical." And when you point out my hypocrisy we're back to free speech 
again!

--
Joe Campbell

---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:

=============
Joe, In  answer to your question ( and by extension respond to Ms. Mix & Mr.
Metzler ) yes, no, and maybe. I believe that I stated in my previous post
that I knew 'some' of the C.C. congregation and I'm happy to admit that all
I have met are very pleasant people. I'm only too willing to admit that Mr.
Metzler knows far more of them, far better. I do not agree with all of their
ideas and that's just fine as they have no apparent intention of inflicting
them on me or anyone else. I do not believe that slavery was ever a good
thing. I do not believe that Pastor Wilson wishes to bring back that
peculiar institution. The same can be probably be said for most of the
critics. I agree with them that slavery was a foul thing and I disagree that
the Kirk wants to return to it. I most assuredly do not hate anyone in
either group simply because they have a view point that's different from
mine. ( Ms. Mix included ) If the two groups were to simply content
themselves with a mutual distain  for one another, I would have nothing to
say on the matter. What does put me in a cranky mood is when the critical
group decides to be a permanent, ongoing fly in the ointment to their
perceived foes. Be it taxes, zoning, permits or anything else they leave no
stone unturned in their quest to make life as difficult as possible for the
Kirk and its members. This strikes me as intolerant and hypocritical. I am
sorry if you find my method of discussion to be "disappointing," but just
because I provided you with a thumbnail sketch of my views doesn't mean you
get to expand it to suit your own agenda..

gc


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] answering g. crabtree


Is the point, Gary, that you just plain like the Kirkers better than their
critics? I can live with that.

--
Joe Campbell (who is genuinely hoping that he is one of the "sanctimonious,
holier then thou sky pilot wannabe(s)")

---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:

=============
Ms. Mix, who do you imagine my "pals"are anyway? The fact that I have spoken
with some of the Kirk's members over the course of the last few years
doesn't exactly make us bosom buddies. The last time I spoke with Doug
Wilson face to face I was fresh out of short pants and he was still a
pollywog. Rest assured that I receive no talking points memos out of Anselm
house much less daily updates from the "sports boyz" or the exalted
Princess. ( I wish I did. I am sure that I would find it amusing ) As I have
said before, I don't imagine that the leadership of C.C. needs or
particularly wants an idiot, such as myself, singing it's praises and that's
why I don't. I am sure that there are things about this congregation that
are not in keeping with my own beliefs, the same as with your beliefs or
Joe's or anyone else's. I do not care. I do not believe the charges that are
leveled with regard to slavery, the oppression of women and homosexuals,
that they are going to somehow take over the town and make all of us
infidels into soylent green or any other silly assertion. If some of the
real defenders come across as "rude" or "mocking" why should you be so
surprised? Almost all of us on this forum come across this way at least some
of the time, why should they be any different? As to why I refuse to come
over to your way of thinking, here's the short version, hundreds of
apparently happy, easy to get along with Kirkers who, for the most part,
mind their own business vs. a couple dozen shrill internet forum posters
that includes two (count 'em two) disgruntled former church members, several
atheists and at least one sanctimonious, holier then thou sky pilot wannabe.
Even with the "new math" this story problem isn't too difficult to cipher.

Hugs & kisses,
G.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
To: <jampot at adelphia.net>; <joekc at adelphia.net>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] answering g. crabtree


> If I were one of the Kirk's "men of chest," I guess I'd answer with
> "oohhh, ooohhhh, I know this one!" but I think Gary's question -- why
> criticize Christ Church?-- is too important to not treat seriously,
> although I can imagine that the Princess and the sports boyz are already
> guffawing . . . Still, I'm pleased to jump in and ask only that Gary and
> his pals consider what I've written, knowing that I write it as a
> Bible-believing Christian woman and critic of Doug Wilson.
>
> The reason that Christ Church and its various spokes and spokesmen are
> "solely taken to task for philosophy's that could be laid equally at the
> door of any number of other denominations," as Gary put it, is that while
> many other Moscow-area churches hold to some similar core beliefs, none
> holds to some of the peripherals -- the "harmonious" nature of slavery,
> for example, or the stoning of gays, or communion and baptism for
> oddlers  -- 
> that the Kirk does, nor is there any other church that practices a gleeful
> "screw you" approach to dialogue with its neighbors.
>
> For example, Bridge Bible Church is largely fundamental in its approach to
> theology, as are the three or four Southern, Fundamentalist and
> Independent Baptist churches in town.  All have pastors who consider
> homosexual acts to be sinful, just as they consider heterosexual acts
> outside of marriage to be sinful, and all profess to a distaste for the
> sinfulness of the world around them.  They believe in and practice strict
> separation of roles in the church, if not society and home, based on
> gender.  They join other self-identified evangelical churches in town in
> believing the Bible to be the inerrant word of God and are as politically
> conservative, in general, as they are theologically conservative.  Some,
> like White Pine Baptist Church, are King James-only and tend to be more
> isolationist; others, like Bridge, adhere to all modern translations of
> Scripture and strive to engage with their neighbors.  Still, they are, in
> doctrine if not in practice, fairly similar in their beliefs -- amongst
> each other and, in regards to the fundamentals of conservative
> evangelicalism, are not terribly different from Christ Church.
>
> With one exception -- evangelism, the public proclamation and living of
> the gospel, is important to these churches.  They would sooner fold up
> than offend their neighbors without reason.  They might, for example, be
> willing to offend folks by proclaiming that sex before marriage is a sin,
> but they absolutely would not risk damage to the Gospel by turning out
> their young men to hurl invective and bigoted, foolish, or simply
> pointless rhetorical bombs at those outside the fold -- the hurt they
> believe they would cause their Lord and Savior precludes such a thing, and
> anyone purporting to represent them, or their Christ, who acted like the
> Kirk's young men have recently on Vision would be yanked back into the
> pews and taught a better way.  Of course, those teaching would have the
> moral authority to correct bad behavior, having taken pains to not engage
> in any themselves, and when accusations were made against them, they would
> consider the merits thereof without deflecting criticism with inane
> appeals to prooftexts of Scripture that get them off the hook and allow
> them to avoid private examination of conscience and conduct.
>
> Now, given that CC is in the "hard Calvinist" strand of the faith, that
> kind of concern about public witness is seemingly not terribly important.
> After all, devoted and true Calvinists believe that God, having already
> chosen -- 
> and chosen "for His good pleasure" -- either the salvation or damnation of
> the world's people, has no particularly charge for the church to conduct
> itself in a manner that might win men and women to Christ.  Why bother?
> First of all, the die has been cast -- the actions, for better or worse,
> of the confessing church won't do a thing to affect the inclination or
> ability of any person to seek and find Jesus Christ, so why bother with
> evangelism, or even simply acting in a way that doesn't needlessly offend.
> Second, if God, in His sovereign wisdom and will, has actually created
> people for the sole person of damning them to hell -- and that "for His
> pleasure" -- isn't it a little fawning, a little foolish, to exhibit more
> care and concern for the unbeliever than their Creator does?  And, in
> fact, wouldn't being one of the "chosen" not put you on the side of the
> God who hates them so and takes joy in their death?  Does that actually
> provoke warm feelings of concern and affection for your presumably
> "unchosen" neighbors?  Remember that it's not necessary that you judge
> correctly who's "in" and who's "out" -- they'll come, or not, when God
> says so, so nothing you do matters.  Not for eternity, not for salvation,
> not for evangelism, not for even the mildest motivation to engage in less
> obnoxious behavior.  If God has decreed open season on the pagan, then
> there's a fieldhouse full of boys who'll take up their pitiful slings and
> arrows to get the ball rolling.
>
> And so you have a church, then, whose pastor and elders and seminarians
> and college students and congregants feel free to put out bogus press
> releases promising topless lectures, who publish a magazine whose bloated
> self-importance is only a little less offensive than its reliance on
> scatological humor; who seemingly can't abide by simple rules for the
> existence of boarding houses and schools; who engages in imprecatory
> prayers against perceived enemies and wait hopefully for the destruction
> of public schools; who, to put it charitably, botched the handling and
> reporting of the two sex offenders in its midst and had the audacity then
> to blame gays and liberals for the church's subsequent black eye; who
> steadfastly acts as though testicles and an arrogant nature trump maturity
> and knowledge when it comes to church leadership; who court and influence
> public officials in ways that no other church would dare -- when not lying
> about them on their blogs; who have managed to orchestrate campaigns of
> mockery and derision against their critics and who keep some people in the
> church because they're too afraid to leave; who crow and howl about ugly,
> unloved liberal women, pathetic ex-hippies, Intoleristas and sodomites and
> who clearly have no love for the people their God most wants them to
> sacrificially love and serve.
>
> I may disagree with some of the theology of Christian churches on both the
> liberal and conservative points on the spectrum, but I gladly call those
> in them sisters and brothers.  With the leadership of Christ Church and
> with many of the mostly male voices emanating from it, I'm not at all able
> to do so, gladly or otherwise.  I don't expect them to care.
>
> But you ought to.  You ought to expect that Moscow's biggest population of
> thuggish, rude, mocking and belligerant bullies would not be found in a
> church.  And you ought to expect that those who share the fundamentals of
> their Gospel would have the courage to stand in conscience against them.
>
> Standing firm, because for me to live is Christ --
>
> keely
>
>
>
>
> From: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
> To: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> CC: Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Christ Church and freedom of religion
> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:59:32 -0700
>
> Joe defiantly states " A better explanation is that there is more to the
> story than Gary suggests."
> OK! Have at it then. What specifically is it about this group of people
> that elicits the level of criticism displayed here. How are they a danger
> to freedom of religion in Moscow? In what way are they a detriment to the
> enjoyment of life in our fair city? Why is Christ Church solely taken to
> task for philosophy's that could be laid equally at the doors of any
> number of other denominations? The fact that the group of detractors is
> diverse in no way explains what it is that makes your target unique. I am
> not going to argue any particular point of doctrine for Mr. Wilson and his
> congregation. As a nonmember, I would be quite unqualified, but as a
> community member and neighbor, I do feel a small need to challenge the
> blind assertions that this group is somehow evil or deserving of the
> vitriol and invective that is hurled against it on this forum. In your
> explanation, please include for us why any point that you care to make can
> be only said of C.C. and not leveled against the Roman Catholics, the
> Latter-Day Saints, the Christian Scientists, the Baptists or any other of
> a  number of other religious groups in the area. If you can't come up with
> something totally unique to Pastor Wilson and Co., please explain why you
> don't attack these other groups with the same fervor and ferocity that you
> reserve for them. I anxiously await your explanation.
>
> Sincerely,
> G. Crabtree
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
> Cc: "Vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Paul Rumelhart"
> <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 5:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Christ Church and freedom of religion
>
>
> As Gary notes, Mr. Rumelhart, it is "strange" that "a group of a couple
> dozen, mostly rational ... people who have for reasons not clearly
> explained,
> singled out this faith community for 'special' attention." A little bit
> too strange to be true, in fact. The group of CC critics include
> Christians and non-Christians, liberals and conservatives, former members
> of CC and atheists. Gary's explanation does not make any sense in light of
> this --  unless you regularly believe in unexplained mass hallucinations.
> A better explanation is that there is more to the story than Gary
> suggests.
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> =============
> Mr. Rumelhart, allow me to offer up a slightly different perspective. I am
> not and never have been a member of Christ Church and am in no way
> beholding
> to them. I have lived in this community for over four decades, back when
> the
> only Wilson I was personally aware of was the pediatrician who introduced
> me
> to the peculiar and startling convention of "turn your head and cough."
> Like
> Joe, I agree with some of their views and not others. I believe that like
> almost all other religions, C.C. believes that it has a handle on the
> truth
> and would very much like to share it with as many members of the community
> as possible. Not out of malice or a desire for conquest but rather the
> desire to gift others with something that they think is exciting and
> wonderful. I have dealt with many members of this congregation, including
> those that have been deemed "insiders" by others on this list, over the
> last
> few years and have found most all of them to be pleasant people who have
> never  tried to "push their views" on me in any way despite the many
> opportunities they might have had. They have never shown up on my door
> step
> unannounced or arrived at my place of business with pamphlets in hand,
> unlike some other denominations which also share our little berg. They
> have,
> on the few occasions that I have asked, answered questions I've put to
> them
> directly and politely. What you witness on vision 2020 is more then a
> little
> strange. You see a group of a couple dozen, mostly rational (with a few
> glaring exceptions) people who have for reasons not clearly explained,
> singled out this faith community for "special" attention. Even when I have
> sat down for face to face discussion with some of these folks I have not
> received a clear or compelling answer as to why the animus for Wilson and
> friends and not other groups which hold similar worldviews. I believe that
> were you to make your inquiry's out in the general populace of Moscow you
> would not find the level of hostility that you see exhibited here.
>
> Regards,
> G. Crabtree
>
> P.S Welcome to Moscow. Aside from this forum, it's a friendly place to
> reside.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 11:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Christ Church and freedom of religion
>
>
>>Paul writes: â?oOpponents of Christ Church: Do you believe that Freedom of
>>Religion trumps your own personal views of their theology? Are you willing
>>to live and let live if they truly wish not to push their views on
>>others?"
>>
>>No and yes; well, sort of. I have no fear that the folks from CC are going
>>to "push their views" on me. Some of their views I already accept and the
>>ones that I don't I am unlikely to accept no matter how hard they push. So
>>this isn't really the issue.
>>
>>I have a hard time believing that the more vocal members of CC -- Doug
>>Wilson, Dale Courtney (spell check?), Ed Iverson -- are just expressing
>>their views. Check out the posting on Vision 2020 from Princess Taro
>>Tanaka, dated Friday, June 23, 2006 10:44 PM. Do you think heâ?Ts merely
>>expressing his views about â?osodomitesâ?? Or is he using this venue as
>>an
>>opportunity to fling insults at a group that he despises, all in the name
>>of Christ? When Wilson suggests that slavery wasnâ?Tt as bad as we thought
>>it was, is this a viewpoint that he is bringing up for debate? Ask your
>>African-American friends what they think about this "debate".
>>
>>Keep in mind that many of the critics of CC are Christians. So it isnâ?Tt
>>really a battle of one religious group against the leftist-Intoleristas.
>>That is just a smoke-screen.
>>
>>--
>>Joe Campbell
>>
>>---- Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>=============
>>I am new here, so forgive my questions.  I've read a bit on this list of
>>the back-and-forth postings concerning this one church and it's left me
>>confused.  I've read the article in the Blot about the church, as well.
>>I should also mention that one of my closest friends is a member of the
>>church, even though we rarely if ever agree on theology.
>>
>>What it all boils down to for me is this one simple question:  Does the
>>leadership of Christ Church respect freedom of religion?  Are they
>>pushing some kind of agenda to make over Moscow into a Christian-only
>>area?
>>
>>The rest of the discussions don't interest me, for the most part.  My
>>theological views are pretty much orthogonal to those of Christ Church
>>members as I understand them, so it's pointless for me to debate about
>>them.  I could care less if they serve alcohol at Trinity Fest, I'll
>>leave that to the people whose job it is to make those decisions.  The
>>submission of women topic doesn't bother me because the women of that
>>church don't seem to have any problems with it.  I don't even really
>>care about the whole Sitler thing because there are so many
>>inconsistencies between both versions of events that I'll probably never
>>know what really happened or who should have done what when.
>>
>>If we freedom-loving people of Moscow practice what we preach, then why
>>be up in arms about their views?  Why worry if they are successful?
>>More power to them.
>>
>>However, if they are truly trying to stifle freedom of religion in
>>others here in the community then I will be worried.
>>
>>Members of Christ Church: Do you wish to rework Moscow into a Christ
>>Church-derived paradise?  Or do you believe fully in Free Will?
>>
>>Opponents of Christ Church: Do you believe that Freedom of Religion
>>trumps your own personal views of their theology?  Are you willing to
>>live and let live if they truly wish not to push their views on others?
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>If I'm being presumptious here, I'm sorry.  I came here hoping for
>>reasoned debate and see mostly mud-slinging and name-calling by both
>>sides.
>>
>>=====================================================
>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>====================================================
>>
>>
>>=====================================================
>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>====================================================
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> =====================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> communities of the Palouse since 1994.                 http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ====================================================
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
>